The Fetish of Scientism & the Speed of Light

Not long ago the Scientists at the new CERN accelerator announced that they had observed the “impossible”: neutrinos had traveled faster than the speed of light.

This is a blatant violation of Einstein’s Relativity, which has had the aura of “truth” about it for nearly a century. The scientists were so reluctant to publish the data that violated Einstein’s truth that they repeated the experiment with thousands of neutrinos. The results were consistent; the neutrinos arrived with 80 nanoseconds to spare, well out of any margin of error. The results were reported, and requests were made for independent verification by other accelerators.

The physics world lit up, with all sorts of ameliorating suggestions and excuses for why the readings were in error. And in fact, that is exactly the correct response. Every variable must be addressed and accounted for, and all opportunities for falsification of the extraordinary results must be exercised.

Now, after recalibration, rechecking, and re-thinking, the experiment has been repeated with the same results. This still does not mean that the results are final, because they never are, as this whole episode demonstrates. At a minimum the experiment must be replicated on a different accelerator, with different inputs, equipment, and crew.

The impact for this, philosophically, is that it demonstrates in a highly visible instance why expecting Truth from science is futile. Science has limitations. In this case, the limitations are in the measurements and the scale of the problem. Science, when pursued with intellectual integrity, produces contingent factoids only. It never produces facts which are not reversible under future refinement of technology and / or theory. If one wants Truth in one’s worldview, then science is not the source for it.

Now the fetishers of science might declare that there are no Truths to be had. Why? Because science says so. But that claim is made based on the limitations of science: if Truth existed, science couldn’t be depended upon to recognize it. This is demonstrated by its own definition: science produces only contingent factoids.

In fact, science can’t produce evidence of its own conceptual validity under the theorems of Goedel. So the fetishization of science, aka Scientism, is based on fallacy; when it becomes blind faith, it becomes a false religion. The grounds for the assertion that nothing can be believed without scientific data to support it are false: science cannot prove that assertion.

The interesting thing about science fetishism is that its adherents seem to be totally ignorant of the philosophy of science which undergirds its practice. Even when this intellectual void is pointed out, they seem to remain impervious to understanding or even investigating it for addition to their knowledge of the object of their reverence. It is enough for them to merely believe.

The neutrino issue is interesting and fun to watch. Here is a comment from Vox Day:

”The experiments also serve to substantiate my critique of the "extraordinary claims" argument. Traveling faster than light is every bit as extraordinary a claim as the existence of the supernatural; it is actually more extraordinary because claims are far less frequently made for it. And yet, the experiment has been repeated once, will be peer reviewed, and will probably be replicated once or twice in the relatively near future.

If this is "extraordinary evidence", then science is in much worse shape than either the science critics or the science fetishists imagine.

But let's not forget the most important factor here: supraluminal speed is just cool.”

Yes, it is cool. In more ways than one. It serves to demonstrate a responsible exercise of science, and the volatility of its “laws”.